Point 431: 32 years old (2019)
Welch’s one-way test performed instead of ANOVA due to inhomogeneity of variances, looking for a significant age difference between years:
##
## One-way analysis of means (not assuming equal variances)
##
## data: patients$Age and as.factor(patients$Year)
## F = 0.56858, num df = 4.00, denom df = 196.13, p-value = 0.6857
| Indication | Mean age | Median age |
|---|---|---|
| IC | 64.0 | 65.0 |
| RP | 70.2 | 71.5 |
| TL | 71.9 | 72.0 |
Point 164: 39 years old (RP)
Welch’s one-way test performed instead of ANOVA due to inhomogeneity of variances:
##
## One-way analysis of means (not assuming equal variances)
##
## data: patients$Age and patients$Indication
## F = 23.969, num df = 2.00, denom df = 151.89, p-value = 8.972e-10
##
## Pairwise comparisons using t tests with non-pooled SD
##
## data: patients$Age and patients$Indication
##
## IC RP
## RP 0.00057 -
## TL 3.1e-10 0.27292
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
| Gender | Mean age | Median age |
|---|---|---|
| Man | 72.4 | 74 |
| Woman | 68.9 | 70 |
##
## Welch Two Sample t-test
##
## data: patients$Age by patients$Gender
## t = 3.3393, df = 378.17, p-value = 0.0009233
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 1.441131 5.568611
## sample estimates:
## mean in group Man mean in group Woman
## 72.43367 68.92880
## estimate only: convert to intervals for accuracy
## estimate only: convert to intervals for accuracy
##
## Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Successful by as.factor(procedures$Year)
## Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 1.0287, df = 4, p-value = 0.9054
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Success and as.factor(procedures$Year)
##
## 2016 2017 2018 2019
## 2017 0.97 - - -
## 2018 0.97 0.97 - -
## 2019 0.97 0.97 0.97 -
## 2020 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Successful by procedures$Indication
## Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 0.010751, df = 2, p-value = 0.9946
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Success and procedures$Indication
##
## IC RP
## RP 0.99 -
## TL 0.99 0.99
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Successful by procedures$TASCII
## Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 42.006, df = 3, p-value = 4.001e-09
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Success and procedures$TASCII
##
## A B C
## B 0.7816 - -
## C 0.1221 0.0313 -
## D 4.8e-06 1.6e-09 0.0063
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
Overall, including failed procedures, 79% of treatments leave nothing behind
More specific devices:
| Yes/No | Iliac | CFA | P3 | Crural | Lysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | 603.0 | 581.0 | 505.0 | 471.0 | 609.0 |
| Yes | 19.0 | 41.0 | 117.0 | 151.0 | 13.0 |
| % Yes | 3.1 | 6.6 | 18.8 | 24.3 | 2.1 |
| Number of complexity markers | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 371 | 59.6 |
| 1 | 168 | 27.0 |
| 2 | 76 | 12.2 |
| 3 | 7 | 1.1 |
##
## Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Successful by procedures$multiComp
## Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 2.6244, df = 3, p-value = 0.4532
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test
##
## data: procedures$Success and procedures$multiComp
##
## 0 1 2
## 1 0.59 - -
## 2 0.79 0.59 -
## 3 0.59 0.59 0.59
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
Death dates were last checked 17/04/2020
Log-rank test is used to sompare survival estimates between groups
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Year
##
## 2016 2017 2018 2019
## 2017 0.97 - - -
## 2018 0.97 0.95 - -
## 2019 0.95 0.95 0.95 -
## 2020 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and TASCII
##
## A B C
## B 0.00159 - -
## C 9.3e-05 0.07745 -
## D 0.00013 0.05556 0.36620
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Gender
##
## Man
## Woman 0.33
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Indication
##
## IC RP
## RP 5.4e-05 -
## TL 2.1e-09 0.0068
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Successful
##
## No
## Yes 0.0021
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Dev
##
## Bal St
## St 0.5940 -
## Fail 0.0054 0.0445
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and multiComp
##
## 0 1 2
## 1 0.75 - -
## 2 0.92 0.75 -
## 3 0.75 0.91 0.75
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: tlPat and TASCII
##
## A B C
## B 0.151 - -
## C 0.039 0.192 -
## D 0.039 0.192 0.600
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: tlPat and Gender
##
## Man
## Woman 0.26
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: tlPat and Successful
##
## No
## Yes 0.0021
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: tlPat and Dev
##
## Bal St
## St 0.8884 -
## Fail 0.0064 0.0270
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: tlPat and multiComp
##
## 0 1 2
## 1 0.61 - -
## 2 0.51 0.53 -
## 3 0.61 0.61 0.53
##
## P value adjustment method: BH
##
## Pairwise comparisons using Log-Rank test
##
## data: patients and Indication
##
## IC RP
## RP 1.000 -
## TL 0.086 0.086
##
## P value adjustment method: BH